Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:37:25 -0600
From:      "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
To:        Joe Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com>
Cc:        stable@freebsd.org, current <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006)
Message-ID:  <20051218023725.GM63497@over-yonder.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com>
References:  <43A266E5.3080103@samsco.org> <20051217220021.GB93998@svcolo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 02:00:21PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Joe Rhett, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> Increasing the number of deployed systems out of date [...]

This doesn't make any sense.  If you install a 6.0 system, in 6 months
(assuming you installed it right when 6.0 was cut, for simplicity), it
will be 6 months out of date.  It's neither more nor less out of date
if the current release is then 6.1, or 6.2, or 8.12; it's still 6
months back.

A case could, in fact, be made that more common releases lead to far
FEWER deployed systems out of date, since it makes it far easier for
those who already use binary upgrades instead of source to get things
faster.


Now, this is not to say that easier incremental binary upgrades are a
bad thing, but bad analogy doesn't help anybody...


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051218023725.GM63497>